The kings go on to score two power play goals and win the game after the puck clearly hits Jeff carter. That bogus penalty probably cost san jose the game.

40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Alex116

Posted - 05/30/2013 : 16:50:22 Beans....enjoy the golf weekend!

Anyone notice how close the Seabrook winner was to being offside??? Can't recall the Hawk on the boards, but in the replay, i used my pvr to slo-mo it (frame by frame) and that Hawk on the boards is millimeters from being offside! It was so close, i'm surprised Detroit wasn't complaining even, though i didn't see or hear anything from their bench at that point? You'd have to slow it down to realize just how close the play was, but the zebra got this one right!

I'm not the least bit surprised however that Detroit and their fans were a little upset with the Bolland hit that led to the goal. It was borderline at best and would have been called in a lot of situations. Again, it leads back to the "put the whistle away" mentality, something i don't like.

The radio was alive today with discussions of how to make ref's more accountable and how the league needs to have them call the game the same way no matter the situation. If it puts a team two men down, so be it! If it's in the last minute, so be it. If it's a penalty, it has to be called!!! That tackle by Quincey should have been a delayed penalty call and the play should have continued and allowed Hjarmlsson (sp?) to be the hero!!! Take the NFL as a prime example. 99% of the time, calls are made the same throughout a game, INCLUDING pass interference on final drives and even final plays, which can often lead to 1st and goal at the 1 yard line!!! NHL needs to man up and get on board with a penalty being a penalty regardless of "when"......

Beans15

Posted - 05/29/2013 : 20:39:14 I'm heading out on a golf trip tomorrow and won't be back for a week so I wanted to throw down before the masses used tonight's call as an example of how a challenge would have or could have been used.

Bottom line, right call or wrong, the whistle was blown. Even a challenge does not make this play a goal. Personally, I don't see how Saad gets a penalty on the play but the fact remains the same. The whistle was blown. So even I a challenge system the best case would have been a penalty for Detroit putting Chicago on a PP.

But it would not have made the goal stand in any way.

Ok, see ya. Hitting the links.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Alex116

Posted - 05/29/2013 : 17:53:32

quote:Originally posted by OILINONTARIO

quote:[i] there's no debating whether or not a puck hit another player or the glass before leaving the ice

Tell that to Sahis.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.

Well put Oil, well put!

I guess what i meant was, 99% of the time, this call can be confirmed and as other replay rulings go, there would obviously have to be "conclusive evidence" in making these calls under review!

OILINONTARIO

Posted - 05/29/2013 : 14:44:21

quote:[i] there's no debating whether or not a puck hit another player or the glass before leaving the ice

Tell that to Sahis.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.

Alex116

Posted - 05/29/2013 : 14:32:58 Beans, i lie somewhere in the middle on this debate in that i do think more things should be reviewable, but i don't think everything should. Much like the NFL you referenced, you can't have EVERYTHING reviewable or it could get ridiculous, however, with limited "challenges" and depending on the consequences of a lost challenge, i don't think coaches would be challenging much UNLESS it had a serious impact on a game and they were confident the ref had messed up!

Speaking of the NFL reference, i went back and read some of the posts earlier and this one stood out............

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

I also don't like reviews of penalties in any sport. Even the NFL, who pioneered the challenge process, does not allow all calls to be reviewed. In fact, there are fewer calls that can be reviewed that those that can be reviewed. I think the NHL's process of having a goal reviewable is more than plenty.

Again, i agree that not everything should be reviewable, but i do like things like majors / game misconduct penalties and the stupid delay of game penalty and perhaps maybe even too many men? I don't wanna see hooking, slashing, etc that are judgemental at best. Lets face it, there's always gonna be human element in the reffing and we have to live with some calls we may deem poor, but there's a difference between what one person may view as a slash and what someone else does. However, there's no debating whether or not a puck hit another player or the glass before leaving the ice, and this should be 100% correct everytime! Of course, even with reviews MLB has managed to screw up fair / foul balls and homeruns as well, but they get most of them correct after review!

One other comment of yours i missed originally is this:

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

I, for one, think that instant replay in the NFL was better before the coach's challenge. I don't think the coach's challenge changes anything in the game enough to warrent the time.

No offense, but i question your NFL knowledge if you really feel that the opportunity to challenge, and the challenges themselves, don't warrant the time! The NFL is so different from the NHL in so many ways of course, but these challenges are huge! When a team is fighting for field position and has a limited number of opportunities (downs), a correct call is of the upmost importance! Continuing drives is HUGE in the game of football. I couldnt' disagree more with your opinion here and i haven't even got into calls that could affect a FG try compared to a TD!!!

Beans15

Posted - 05/29/2013 : 07:48:18 I don't think anyone is worked up nor do I think I have any more mumbo jumbo than others. It's always a great debate when peopleís opinions are polar opposites. Furthermore, I think Slozo and I both enjoy pushing the boundaries in our debates. At least I know I do and that is also what I read from his posts.

It's all good.

I still come back to the NFL challenge system as an example to refute this offside leading to a goal challenge. Using the example of a ball caught inbounds or not, the challenge can be made at any time and any place on the field. It does not have to be a scoring play to make the challenge. That is the only why I think the challenge can be fair is to have the opportunity to make the challenge every time.

Comparatively, to make an off side call a challengeable play, it must be able to be challenges any time. Furthermore, only plays that are called can be challenged. If the offside should have been called but was missed, I don't see how it can be overturned.

Let's say this, again turning to the NFL and a challenge of a ball caught where the original call was the catch was inbounds. After review of the play the ball was ruled to be caught out of bounds but it was caused by pass interferences. The pass interference was not called and cannot be called after the fact. To the play is overturned but the penalty is not called.

I don't think NHL refs get many calls they actually make wrong. Sure, there might be 1 out of 20 high sticks that are not high sticks or an embellished dive is missed here or there. But I think there are a pile of calls that are missed on a nightly basis. I still think it evens up but the point is I don't think there is a system that can be designed that can catch the calls that are not made.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Guest9258

Posted - 05/29/2013 : 05:27:27 Why do you let Beans get yourselfs all worked up. Its just his opinion and is no more right or wrong than anyone elses. He just likes to write a lot of mumbo jumbo to suport his. Dont worry about it.

slozo

Posted - 05/28/2013 : 05:34:46

quote:How can you say one offside can be reviewed and another can not?? If I am understanding correctly, you are saying only those offside calls that are missed and lead to a goal can be reviewed.

Easy - an offside can be reviewed if the coach decides to use one of his challenges. It's the coache's decision obviously, but I would assume they wouldn't waste a challenge on an offside that resulted in nothing.

quote:What about an offside that IS called on a 2 on 1 but it wrong?? How can you logically and reasonably say in that situation it would not have led to a goal?? Can that play be reviewed?? If so, how to you right the wrong if the call is incorrect??

You can't correct everything, of course. Thanks for pointing that out, we all had no idea.

quote:See my point?? If a play is to be reviewed, it has to be able to be reviewed in every sitation and regardless of the outcome. Using the offside as an example, you can not review an offside that leads to a goal without the ability to review and offside that does not lead to a goal.

I see your point that you can't fix everything - I agree.But why would I HAVE to review every situation? You can only do what you can do, end of story. Our goal is to improve and make things better / more fair . . . not get frustrated that we can't make things perfect, so we stick with our more unfair system.

quote:It is pretty simple. I'm shocked you didn't figure it out.

Apparently it's simple for you sure . . . you can't get it perfect, so you stick with what's not working.

I figured it out now . . . thanks Beans.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 17:25:56

quote:Originally posted by Beans15Alex, if you read the past 10 or so posts you will see this whole challenge thing is branching off into a few different conversations. There seem to be four factions:

1 - The minority that says leave the game as it as a little human error is part of sport.

2 - The group that is saying only calls that are made but are wrong can be reviewed. The penalty creates a natural stop to the game and the challenge rule would help correct some mistakes.

3 - The group that says all calls can be reviewed if under the specific circumstances and that both calls made and not made can impact the game. All calls should be reviewable.

4 - The group that thinks that every ref should make every call complete right every single time and the coaches, fans, GM's, media, police, judicial system, and God himself should have the ability to stop the game and right every wrong that happens. If the ref is found to have made a mistake then a cross will rise up from the centre ice faceoff circle and the ref will climb up and be burned at the stake like the heretic sinner that he/she is.

Three of these groups are having a reasonably logical debate and one of these groups is completely insane. I let you figure out who is who.

Yes, it's clear to see that those described in #1 above are completely insane.

All kidding aside....i now see that there are more than just 2 opinions on here and it's branched out as you said. Having said that, you're right, there's no way to tell what would have resulted when offside IS called and it's a wrong call. However, at least these don't result in goals! There's certainly no fair way to "re-award" a team the play they "might" have made on the offside play, so there surely wouldn't be anyone wasting a challenge flag! SO, even with the challenge rule, you'd still have your little bit of human error element you seem to like! No different that MLB and NFL where even with replay / challenges, there's wrong calls made! What they'd be doing with the challenge system, is cutting down the human mistakes, though not completely taking them out of the game as that's nearly impossible!

See, it's a win win situation. Those of us who want the game to be called as close to "spot on" as possible would get our way, and those, like yourself, who want a bit of human error involved, get's their way too!

If they don't go the challenge route, i sincerely hope the Oilers lose game 7 of the SCF in OT on a missed / blown call. Then, i'll log on here to see your comments in continued support of no challenges........

OILINONTARIO

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 16:51:59

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Again, I do not believe the issue to be of calls that are made being wrong. I think the bigger issue with people are the calls that are not made. I don't see how a challenge system fixes that.

What's been said that makes you feel this way? This thread was started because of the delay of game call that Sahis says "clearly hits Jeff Carter". I guess this could be an example of both a missed call and a call being made as his claim was that there was an error.

Aside from this though, i don't see a lot of discussion about missed calls vs wrongly made calls.

Again, going back to the argument about a 60 min game, etc, for two challenges, i still don't see significant enough delay to warrant not having a call made correctly at a key time.

Alex, if you read the past 10 or so posts you will see this whole challenge thing is branching off into a few different conversations. There seem to be four factions:

1 - The minority that says leave the game as it as a little human error is part of sport.

2 - The group that is saying only calls that are made but are wrong can be reviewed. The penalty creates a natural stop to the game and the challenge rule would help correct some mistakes.

3 - The group that says all calls can be reviewed if under the specific circumstances and that both calls made and not made can impact the game. All calls should be reviewable.

4 - The group that thinks that every ref should make every call complete right every single time and the coaches, fans, GM's, media, police, judicial system, and God himself should have the ability to stop the game and right every wrong that happens. If the ref is found to have made a mistake then a cross will rise up from the centre ice faceoff circle and the ref will climb up and be burned at the stake like the heretic sinner that he/she is.

Three of these groups are having a reasonably logical debate and one of these groups is completely insane. I let you figure out who is who.

Really, in the end my logic is simple. Sport is human against human. Part of that involved errors. The players are not perfect and neither are the referees. I don't like when a game is changed significantly by the refs but Iím not a fool enough to think that any challenge system will stop that. The NFL and MLB have challenge systems and they still have the odd game where the outcome is dictated by the officials. I have a hard time agreeing that a few missed calls will impact the outcome of a game. The bad calls even up over time and I suggest that if a person was to watch 100 hockey games (not including the team they are cheering for) they would see less than 5 that would have been significantly changed by the way the game was officiated.

Personally, to add a layer of review into the sport that mightchange 5% of the results is crazy bananas.

Leave it alone.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Amen brother. But NFL not NHL.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.

Beans15

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 16:06:52

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Again, I do not believe the issue to be of calls that are made being wrong. I think the bigger issue with people are the calls that are not made. I don't see how a challenge system fixes that.

What's been said that makes you feel this way? This thread was started because of the delay of game call that Sahis says "clearly hits Jeff Carter". I guess this could be an example of both a missed call and a call being made as his claim was that there was an error.

Aside from this though, i don't see a lot of discussion about missed calls vs wrongly made calls.

Again, going back to the argument about a 60 min game, etc, for two challenges, i still don't see significant enough delay to warrant not having a call made correctly at a key time.

Alex, if you read the past 10 or so posts you will see this whole challenge thing is branching off into a few different conversations. There seem to be four factions:

1 - The minority that says leave the game as it as a little human error is part of sport.

2 - The group that is saying only calls that are made but are wrong can be reviewed. The penalty creates a natural stop to the game and the challenge rule would help correct some mistakes.

3 - The group that says all calls can be reviewed if under the specific circumstances and that both calls made and not made can impact the game. All calls should be reviewable.

4 - The group that thinks that every ref should make every call complete right every single time and the coaches, fans, GM's, media, police, judicial system, and God himself should have the ability to stop the game and right every wrong that happens. If the ref is found to have made a mistake then a cross will rise up from the centre ice faceoff circle and the ref will climb up and be burned at the stake like the heretic sinner that he/she is.

Three of these groups are having a reasonably logical debate and one of these groups is completely insane. I let you figure out who is who.

Really, in the end my logic is simple. Sport is human against human. Part of that involved errors. The players are not perfect and neither are the referees. I don't like when a game is changed significantly by the refs but Iím not a fool enough to think that any challenge system will stop that. The NHL and MLB have challenge systems and they still have the odd game where the outcome is dictated by the officials. I have a hard time agreeing that a few missed calls will impact the outcome of a game. The bad calls even up over time and I suggest that if a person was to watch 100 hockey games (not including the team they are cheering for) they would see less than 5 that would have been significantly changed by the way the game was officiated.

Personally, to add a layer of review into the sport that mightchange 5% of the results is crazy bananas.

Leave it alone.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

OILINONTARIO

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 15:58:20 Despite one questionable call that was made during an unspecified game against an unnamed team during the regular season, the Habs qualified for the post-season. And they lost.

They would have lost anyway, due to their lack of discipline. The universe unfolds as it should, grasshopper.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.

Beans15

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 15:52:44

quote:Originally posted by slozo

quote:Answer me this, logically:

What is the difference between a missed offside call that led to a goal compared to a missed off side call that didn't lead to a goal?? Both are missed calls and if one can be reviewed, both should be reviewed, no??

The difference is, one resulted in a goal, and one didn't. The one resulting in a goal could make a 100% difference in the game result/points; the other becomes negligible.

That was a real easy one Beans, I was really thinking you could come up with something more difficult than that!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

How can you say one offside can be reviewed and another can not?? If I am understanding correctly, you are saying only those offside calls that are missed and lead to a goal can be reviewed.

What about an offside that IS called on a 2 on 1 but it wrong?? How can you logically and reasonably say in that situation it would not have led to a goal?? Can that play be reviewed?? If so, how to you right the wrong if the call is incorrect??

See my point?? If a play is to be reviewed, it has to be able to be reviewed in every sitation and regardless of the outcome. Using the offside as an example, you can not review an offside that leads to a goal without the ability to review and offside that does not lead to a goal.

It is pretty simple. I'm shocked you didn't figure it out.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Pasty7

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 15:30:52

quote:Originally posted by OILINONTARIO

No. My point was that if you can't even remember the opposition team, how can you possibly think that the outcome of a questionable call will affect your team so much that the league should make a drastic change in the way the game is reffed.

Let's take a breath, and enjoy the game, for all its faults, and enjoy the remainder of the playoffs. Greatest game on earth and ice.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.

you re right god forbid we try and improve the quality of our game, and yeah i may have trouble thinking of which team the habs were playing but i still remember the incident clearly it was also during the habs slide near the end of the seasonm and it cost them 2 points, seems pretty memorable to me,,

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 13:41:28 No. My point was that if you can't even remember the opposition team, how can you possibly think that the outcome of a questionable call will affect your team so much that the league should make a drastic change in the way the game is reffed.

Let's take a breath, and enjoy the game, for all its faults, and enjoy the remainder of the playoffs. Greatest game on earth and ice.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.

Alex116

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 12:58:18

quote:Originally posted by OILINONTARIO

quote:Originally posted by Pasty7

the point IMO would be to help a coach stop a refs blown call from determining the outcome of the game.

for example during the regular season the Habs were in OT i forget who they were playing,

Player A gets hit in the face by a team mates stick but opposition player B gets called with a penalty. Coach throws the flag and the ref can overturn the call.

In another situation:

Player A gets high sticked by Player B and is cut. No original call is made and the coach can not challenge the ruling.

In another situation:

Player A closes his hand on the puck and the ref calls the penalty. Coach throws the flag and the replay upholds the call. Team A gets a delay of game call and that makes it a 5-3 for a full 2 minutes (or until a goal is scored).

Am I getting that right??

If so, I think challenge flags would almost never be used and it would be a pointless rule. Again, I think the bigger issue that fans have is the missed calls. The 2nd situation type of thing were a high stick happens and it's not called, the offside that wasn't called, or the puck touched a player before leaving the surface.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

I 100% disagree - I think the challenge flags would be used often under this scenario - often enough to certainly matter a lot, I would say. And it would make the referees SO much more accountable, you'd see much better games called I reckon.

And what you are talking about IS, exactly, missed calls Beans. Any error of assigned or not assigned penalty is a missed call in my opinion.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

slozo

Posted - 05/27/2013 : 10:51:38

quote:Answer me this, logically:

What is the difference between a missed offside call that led to a goal compared to a missed off side call that didn't lead to a goal?? Both are missed calls and if one can be reviewed, both should be reviewed, no??

The difference is, one resulted in a goal, and one didn't. The one resulting in a goal could make a 100% difference in the game result/points; the other becomes negligible.

That was a real easy one Beans, I was really thinking you could come up with something more difficult than that!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Pasty7

Posted - 05/24/2013 : 13:59:35

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

So a little clarification:

Player A gets hit in the face by a team mates stick but opposition player B gets called with a penalty. Coach throws the flag and the ref can overturn the call.

In another situation:

Player A gets high sticked by Player B and is cut. No original call is made and the coach can not challenge the ruling.

In another situation:

Player A closes his hand on the puck and the ref calls the penalty. Coach throws the flag and the replay upholds the call. Team A gets a delay of game call and that makes it a 5-3 for a full 2 minutes (or until a goal is scored).

Am I getting that right??

If so, I think challenge flags would almost never be used and it would be a pointless rule. Again, I think the bigger issue that fans have is the missed calls. The 2nd situation type of thing were a high stick happens and it's not called, the offside that wasn't called, or the puck touched a player before leaving the surface.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Yeah Beans thats how I see it personally and you're right they would very very rarley get used. But i think thats a good thing for all the points you made above.

the point IMO would be to help a coach stop a refs blown call from determining the outcome of the game.

for example during the regular season the Habs were in OT i forget who they were playing but in OT Subban lined up a player at the blueline missed as he fell his stick came up and replayed showed he missed player x by about 2 feet, the game however is so much faster now than it was 10 years ago the reff called PK for high stick the reulting 4 on 3 powerplay resluted in a overtime goal for the opposition. I would like a coach to be able to challenge this type of play,

Posted - 05/24/2013 : 13:45:32 Beans how can you say that a hockey game between to full teams of human beings where the refs do not make bad calls is the same as two computers playing chess. There are 12 human beings on the ice, they are the ones who shape the game.

I dont watch hockey to see bad calls, I watch hockey to see people score goals makes hits skate fast make good passess. none of which would be taken away if you take away the referees human error.

Beans15

Posted - 05/24/2013 : 13:25:02 So a little clarification:

Player A gets hit in the face by a team mates stick but opposition player B gets called with a penalty. Coach throws the flag and the ref can overturn the call.

In another situation:

Player A gets high sticked by Player B and is cut. No original call is made and the coach can not challenge the ruling.

In another situation:

Player A closes his hand on the puck and the ref calls the penalty. Coach throws the flag and the replay upholds the call. Team A gets a delay of game call and that makes it a 5-3 for a full 2 minutes (or until a goal is scored).

Am I getting that right??

If so, I think challenge flags would almost never be used and it would be a pointless rule. Again, I think the bigger issue that fans have is the missed calls. The 2nd situation type of thing were a high stick happens and it's not called, the offside that wasn't called, or the puck touched a player before leaving the surface.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Pasty7

Posted - 05/24/2013 : 13:16:14 Beans I understand 100% your gripe with makeing the game robotically controlled and also with all then stoppages and the flow of the game. However I do think a challenge could help clean up embellishment calls and these phantom highsticks that i really don't like to see,

I would like to see a challenge but with restrictions, as i said previously,

another restriction i would add, a coach must be challenging a call and cannot challenge none calls,

also as i said before a penalty can not result from the review only the penalty on the ice overturned,

and if the challenging coach is wrong a 2 min delay of game penalty would be assesed.

I would limit the types of penalties that can be challenged to things like hi sticking, goaltender interference closeing you hand on the puck holding the stick exc....

I think this could help the game and by adding a bench penalty to the team challenging a call if the call on the ice stands after review it will ensure coachs will be useing the challenge to review legitmet mistakes and not just challenging every call that doesn't go their way, since a failed challenge would result in a 5 on 3 powerplay for tha other team! I'm sure most games would go on without any challenges but it would be there for a blown call in say overtime that can result in a loss of 2 points,

Again, if you want to watch something so robotically controlled, got watch two computer's play chess.

Check that out for an hour and then come and debate the Brett Hull skate in the crease goal from the Stanley Cup finals.

Hold your judgement on what is absurd until after that conversation.........

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

So you are against the instant replays then that the NHL currently uses? And if not, please present to us your logical argument as to why that's not just as robotic as being able to review a missed offside that resulted in a goal . . .

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

I don't like or dislike the current system. I don't think if you take it out of the game that it will make that much of a difference but I am fine with checking on scoring plays. All I am saying is that you can't completely manage the game robotically.

Answer me this, logically:

What is the difference between a missed offside call that led to a goal compared to a missed off side call that didn't lead to a goal?? Both are missed calls and if one can be reviewed, both should be reviewed, no??

That is my point. I don't think the sport of hockey can be separated to a degree in which a challenge system will work. In all challenge systems, the only plays that are challenges are those that can be reviewed regardless of the outcome. For example, a player catching the ball inbound in football can be reviewed. It can be reviewed at any time and under any circumstance. They play does not need to be a first down or a touchdown to be reviewed.

The same needs to hold true for hockey. If the call can be challenged it has to be able to be challenged in any circumstance and not only on scoring plays. If an offside can be challenged, it has to be able to be challenged any time.

Further to that point, what happens if an offside is called on a 2-1 but the coach challenges the call and it is found to be a mistake. Does the team get a 2-1 again?? How can that play be duplicated??

There are no do-overs in hockey like their can be in football or baseball.

So, to further this argument past the point of "I'm Right" - "NO, I'm RIght". Can those Pro challenge posters provide a list of things that could be challenged in your mind??

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 05/24/2013 : 10:16:43 I agree there are a lot of missed calls and incorrect call being made on the ice this playoffs. I do believe they are changing the outcome or momentum of some of the games, series this and other playoffs. But that is my Bettman conspiracy to promote particular markets. If a challenge could be made on the wrong calls made or not made on the ice, I think I would be ok with it once or twice a game. Why are players and coaches the only people being repremanded when Ref's dont see a game the same way others can. That being said there is no challenges allowed currently and the only way to voice your opinion is to use the press conference's post game.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

slozo

Posted - 05/24/2013 : 07:59:52

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Again, if you want to watch something so robotically controlled, got watch two computer's play chess.

Check that out for an hour and then come and debate the Brett Hull skate in the crease goal from the Stanley Cup finals.

Hold your judgement on what is absurd until after that conversation.........

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

So you are against the instant replays then that the NHL currently uses? And if not, please present to us your logical argument as to why that's not just as robotic as being able to review a missed offside that resulted in a goal . . .

Check that out for an hour and then come and debate the Brett Hull skate in the crease goal from the Stanley Cup finals.

Hold your judgement on what is absurd until after that conversation.........

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Guest9848

Posted - 05/24/2013 : 07:08:36 Sports should be about athletes competing, referees are not part of the game its competition between 2 teams not a competiton between 2 teams and a competition to see if the refs can do their job.

anytime a referee makes a mistake that leads to a powerplay or misses a call or calls back a goal for goalie interference when there was none is a negative thing. It should not be part of the game simple as that, the only thing that should matter are what the 2 teams do on the ice.

With the amount of cameras on the game these days their is no excuse for why we should let referees make mistakes that affect the outcome of the game.

We don't need a challenge call from the coaches, it should be automatic when a bad call is made the play is immediately corrected by the guys in the situation room.

The argument that human error of the refs is a good part of the game is absolutely absurd.

Alex116

Posted - 05/22/2013 : 11:38:30

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Again, I do not believe the issue to be of calls that are made being wrong. I think the bigger issue with people are the calls that are not made. I don't see how a challenge system fixes that.

What's been said that makes you feel this way? This thread was started because of the delay of game call that Sahis says "clearly hits Jeff Carter". I guess this could be an example of both a missed call and a call being made as his claim was that there was an error.

Aside from this though, i don't see a lot of discussion about missed calls vs wrongly made calls.

Again, going back to the argument about a 60 min game, etc, for two challenges, i still don't see significant enough delay to warrant not having a call made correctly at a key time.

Beans15

Posted - 05/22/2013 : 10:59:48 I appreciate all the example of what could be called wrong, but I just don't think those missed calls impact the outcome of that many games. Sure, they might impact a game or two here or there. Sometimes those games are of a higher magnitude such as the Kings/LA game last night. But I still come back to the game of hockey being a 60 minute battle between two teams that a few missed calls here and there do not impact.

Again, I do not believe the issue to be of calls that are made being wrong. I think the bigger issue with people are the calls that are not made. I don't see how a challenge system fixes that.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Alex116

Posted - 05/22/2013 : 10:52:14 5052.....Well said! I figured the call in the Kings/Sharks game would be brought up. I have no problem with that missed call and i totally agree that you can't say for sure that Penner would have put it in. Maybe the Sharks defender let up slightly when he heard the whistle? Mistake by the ref, but not one that would be reviewable in "my perfect NHL".

Beans....What about those goals that cross the line, play continues and it's only revealed after the play ends that it was in fact a goal? We wait for a play to end to get those calls correct!

As far as major penalties being incorrect, i'd argue that it happens quite a lot more than you think it does, but that may just be our opinions differing? Also, I'm not saying every penalty should be challengeable (is that a word?). But major's for sure and i don't see a problem with a stoppage in play. How often does a guy get 5 for boarding, headshot, high stick, etc where the play doesn't stop either immediately, or very quickly. How about when a guy is whistled for a high stick, gets 4 mins and upon seeing the replay, we all realize at home that it was his teammate's stick that clipped him?

The biggest point here, and it's one that wouldn't slow the game down much at all would be to limit the coaches to 1 (or maybe 2?) challenges per game. Heck, some games they may go unused and others there'd only be the two (or 4) times in the entire game that we need to stop for a few seconds? Personally, i'd prefer this tiny delay (most reviews are pretty easy to see the reality in seconds) to ensure a fair game all around. I'd hate to see another Brett Hull Stanley Cup winning goal or incident similar cost a team the title!

Guest5052

Posted - 05/22/2013 : 09:50:26 I agree that the NHL, or any league, needs to be careful with replay and challenges.

I have to admit, I kinda like the human error of sport, but in moderation.

getting calls right is certainly important for the integrity of the league. and I agree that games, series cup runs and millions of dollars can hinge on a blown call or not. But to what probability, we'll never know, but Id suggest modest (meaning that blown calls alter the probability fo a different result, but not massively).

last nights disallowed kings goal is a good talking point. No doubt in my mind that that was a blown call. But would it have changed the game, or the series? Maybe. We'll ever know, but ot certainly could have.

But, would replay save that goal? Id suggest not. The puck was trickling in when the whistle was blown. Surely it looks like Penner would have got there first, but Im not sure you can conclusively say that someone else wouldnt have got a stick on it had the whistle not blown. You risk a slippery slope if you start to infer what might have happened. had a whistle not blown.

I like the review of goals. I dont think it interupts the flow of the game and in fact in many cases adds to the tension. I could perhaps live with on eor two challenges, but would suggets that replays are not the be-all;end-all.

those are my thoughts

Beans15

Posted - 05/22/2013 : 09:16:06 My point is that a goal being reviewed doesn't change the position of the clock and there is a natural stoppage with a faceoff regardless of the outcome of the review.

With all due respect, how often is a major penalty incorrectly assessed?? My vote would be rarely. The issues most fans have with refs are the calls they miss or the minors that should be majors. If it's a missed call, how can a challenge be made?? A missed called doesn't stop the game. So, would a coach be allowed to throw his flag at the next stoppage to review a call that should have been made??

My point behind NFL and MLB having naturual stoppages in the game for challenges is because this is a gap between every single play in those sports. It provides a place where a challenge can be made. In hockey, how would that work? I don't see it as making sense.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

Alex116

Posted - 05/21/2013 : 21:28:53

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

I don't have an issue with the goal review because it's at a natural pause in the game. That said, I also agree with Oil. I could take them or leave them. I don't think the goal standing or being reverse often has an impact on the outcome of the game.

How is it that a goal review is "a natural pause" in the game? It takes much longer than just lining up for a faceoff, not to mention the ones that are called no goal, play continues and then they go back and look! What's the difference if it's a 5 min major and a game that they review??? The same "natural pause" occurs (a face off) does it not???

Also, i don't have stats on goal's standing or being reversed, but with technology today, is it not wise to review anyway? I mean, all it takes is one missed call on a goal being allowed or disallowed to cost a team a game which could cost said team a win, a playoff spot, home ice, a series, a cup, etc! I say use the resources available to you, within reason.

Beans15

Posted - 05/21/2013 : 13:42:08 I don't have an issue with the goal review because it's at a natural pause in the game. That said, I also agree with Oil. I could take them or leave them. I don't think the goal standing or being reverse often has an impact on the outcome of the game.

Does anyone have any info on how often a video review, in any league, changes the actual call by the official?? The only information I can find was the coach's challenge rates from 2008. That information shows that less than 40% of the coach's challenges resulted in a reversal and only 11 of the 30 NFL teams had greater than a 50% success rate in their challenge flags.

I would rather see momentum and great sports action than guys wearing hoods and looking at cameras only to uphold the call 63% of the time.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

OILINONTARIO

Posted - 05/21/2013 : 13:11:52 The game has been great for decades. As far as video reviews for goals, I could take them or leave them. The game has changed for the better with embellishment calls, the extra ref, and emphasis on the intolerance of obstruction. What is the next logical step? Keep the game the way it is right now. It ain't broke.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.

Alex116

Posted - 05/21/2013 : 12:40:26 Oil, i'd take that bet. I'm pretty sure the majority of players and coaches would love to have the challenge option. Too many have been screwed over the years with bad calls that lead to goals and or losses, be it an embellished highstick that lead to a PP goal or a bad delay of game call where the puck actually deflected, etc.

I'm all for everyone having their own opinion and i commend you and Beans for stating your own which would seem to differ from the masses. However, i ask you both this.....Is the game not better with video replay of goals as we have today, as compared to without it? Is this not too "robotic" for your guys thinking?

OILINONTARIO

Posted - 05/21/2013 : 12:35:37 Agree with Beans 100% here.

Like it or not, the dynamics of the game are affected by the discretion of the referees. The players and coaches are aware that the fast-paced action is a difficult thing to hold under a microscope, and I think most would agree that the officials do a pretty good job, and would rather continue the status quo than slow the game down with challenges.

Not sure if there has been a poll of NHL players regarding this subject, but I am pretty confident that most would oppose the challenge rule.

As far as fans of the game, count me in as one against.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2014.

Beans15

Posted - 05/21/2013 : 09:16:54 I never said I wanted the reffing to become crappy! WTF?? Are people serious that stupid???? Wait, I forgot this is coming from the guy who said a hit to the neck is different from a head shot. Perhaps you received too many hits to the neck as a child or something.

Geez. Why is it so ridiculous to think that the NHL doesn't need a challenge system??

If you want to watch a robotically controlled environment where nothing ever goes wrong, watch a game of pong or watch a game of chess between Deep Blue and Deep Thought. I'll keep the NHL as it is, where people are involved and sometimes things don't work out perfectly.

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

sahis34

Posted - 05/21/2013 : 08:49:11

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

quote:Originally posted by slozo

Beans, in my opinion, you have "jumped the shark" with your comment that, in your opinion, the game is better off with the occasional blown call, and that you otherwise wouldn't watch.

I think this statement speaks for itself. You have OFFICIALLY gone on record that you will not watch hockey anymore if the rules become fairer and less arbitrary, being able to be reviewed.

Of course tennis and the NFL are better for their challenges and play reviews . . .

As would be the NHL.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

If you want to put words in my mouth, that is fine. My exact statement was:

"I, for one, would likely lose my interest in sports that became too robotically officiated...........Part of the appeal to tennis was the occasional blown call."

What you heard was:

" you will not watch hockey anymore if the rules become fairer and less arbitrary, being able to be reviewed."

There is a massive difference between the statements but you can think or read or see anything you want. I couldn't care less about your OFFICIAL this or that crap. Because that is exactly what it is.

I, for one, think that instant replay in the NFL was better before the coach's challenge. I don't think the coach's challenge changes anything in the game enough to warrent the time. I don't think the coach's challenge has done more harm than good in regards to the fan's enjoyment of momentum swings in games.

As far as tennis goes, I enjoyed watching a guy like Johnny Mac lose his marbles after a call. It was pure entertainment to me. And I would bet large sums of money that if he was asked how many matches he lost because of an umpire he would likely say none. Blown calls rarely impact the outcome of a match.

I think the NHL has it right today. I have no beef with replays on goals. But as far as coach's challenges, I don't like the idea. I think it might work ok in the NFL or tennis or even baseball because of the amount of stoppaged in the game. Even considering the TV timeouts and other stuff, the game of hockey has far too much flow to have effective challenges.

If anyone will allow me to have an opinion, I will have that one please. If I have to follow the masses or be told dumb crap like OFFICIALLY this or that, you can shove your comments up your.......

Is it ok for me to have an opinion???

Ottawa, the best coached team in the NHL, with MVP like players such as Chris Neil, will win the Cup in 2013!

go watch basketball if you wanna see a spectacle sport, sure it would be more entertaining if maggie the monkey was referee, but I rather see the game refereed the best they possibly can